Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the term returns 'to the back of the active dictionary,' disclosing the ordering side effect an agent could not learn from structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and appends the meaningful consequence. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter unarchive operation whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers the action and its ordering effect. It omits preconditions (e.g., term must already be archived) and failure behavior, which is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents 'id'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for this case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Unarchive') and resource ('dictionary term'), and describes the resulting state. It is clearly distinguishable from archive_dictionary_term and delete_dictionary_term without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage as the inverse of archive_dictionary_term and describes the effect, but never states when to prefer this over delete_dictionary_term or what the precondition is for unarchiving. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.